Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

No Big Brother Here: Heterarchy, Shona Political Succession and the Relationship between Great Zimbabwe and Khami, Southern Africa

Chirikure, Shadreck, Mukwende, Tawanda, Moffett, Abigail J., Nyamushosho, Robert T., Bandama, Foreman, House, Michelle·2018·Cambridge Archaeological Journal

Abstract

In southern Africa, there has been a long-standing but unsubstantiated assumption that the site of Khami evolved out of Great Zimbabwe's demise around ad 1450. The study of local ceramics from the two sites indicate that the respective ceramic traditions are clearly different across the entire sequence, pointing towards different cultural affiliations in their origins. Furthermore, there are tangible typological differences between and within their related dry-stone architecture. Finally, absolute and relative chronologies of the two sites suggest that Khami flourished as a major centre from the late fourteenth/early fifteenth century, long before Great Zimbabwe's decline. Great Zimbabwe also continued to be occupied into the late seventeenth and perhaps eighteenth centuries, after the decline of Khami. Consequently, the combined significance of these observations contradicts the parent-offspring relationship implied in traditional frameworks. Instead, as chronologically overlapping entities, the relationship between Khami and Great Zimbabwe, was heterarchical. However, within the individual polities, malleable hierarchies of control and situational heterarchies were a common feature. This is in tune with historically documented political relations in related pre-colonial southern Zambezian states, and motivates for contextual approaches to imagining power relations in pre-colonial African contexts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0959774317000555

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mutapa and Torwa-Changamire kings allocated land for cultivation to lower-level social units such as households, based on an ideology linking ancestors, land control, and political power.

    “Based on an ideology that linked ancestors, land control, and political power, Mutapa and Torwa-Changamire kings allocated land for cultivation to lower-level social units, such as households (Chirikure et al. 2017a;Mudenge 1988).”

    From New Perspectives on the Political Economy of Great Zimbabwe (2020) · cites this paper as Chirikure et al. 2017a

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chirikure, S., Mukwende, T., Moffett, A. J., Nyamushosho, R. T., Bandama, F., & House, M.
Venue
Cambridge Archaeological Journal
Published
2017-07-25
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
45-66
ISSN
  • 0959-7743
  • 1474-0540
Cited by
28
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review